The Quality of the Offended
Some years ago I first heard the argument that the reason why unrepentant sinners must experience everlasting torment is due to the offense being against God, whose goodness is infinite. I considered the argument an outlier, not to be taken seriously. Recently I was introduced to a book published in 2016 called, “Four Views On Hell”. In the book, four authors present their respective views and are given opportunities to rebut the presentations of the other authors. Denny Burk presents the case for eternal conscious torment; John G. Stackhouse, Jr., presents the conditional life view; Robin A. Parry presents universalism; and Jerry L. Walls presents a case for hell and purgatory.
Burk surprised me when he stated that the key to his belief in everlasting torment is that very argument I had dismissed. “The seriousness of sin—and thus of the punishment due to sin—is not measured merely by the sin itself but by the value and the worth of the one sinned against.”
Burk argues uses an illustration to make his case. He asks us to imagine happening upon someone pulling the legs off a grasshopper. He points out that this might bother us a bit, but not enough for us to interfere. Then he asks us to revisit the scene with the person pulling the legs off a frog, and then a bird, and then a puppy. He predicts that each encounter would produce in us a stronger negative reaction. He closes his illustration having the person attempting to pull the legs off a human baby. He suggests, hopefully correctly, that we would interfere in some way, doing what we could to rescue the child. His point is that we all intuitively recognize that sin is increased in proportion to the value of the one sinned against. He concludes, “To sin against an infinitely glorious being is an infinitely heinous offense that is worthy of an infinitely heinous punishment.”
There are difficulties with Burk’s line of thinking. Let us start with the illustration. First of all, while it is true that our compassionate concern would tend to grow, in line with the series of creatures he presents, this has more to do with human psychology than anything else. We tend to anthropomorphize animals, that is, we sympathize more with them as the type of animal seems more human-like. While God directs that we should be stewards of all the animals and to treat them humanely, he permits us to kill them, which we, in fact, do with regularity. In fact, we tend to eat a lot of animals pretty far up on the food chain. So the offense in the illustration is mostly to do with sadistic cruelty. While I never hesitate to kill a mosquito, if I saw a child of mine capturing them in order to tear their legs off, I think even that would would cause me concern, leading to a heart-to-heart consultation.
When we consider the human baby, while cruelty remains an issue, the greater issue is murder. Murder is specifically forbidden by God and, so, it is a clear and profound sin. Burk wants to apply this illustration to sinning against God. A problem begins to emerge, however, when we recognize that God tells us that all sins are against him. Along with this knowledge, we also know that justice, particularly as it is presented in the Old Testament, follows the principle of an eye for an eye. This principle was not a call to mutual mutilation; it was a call for appropriate punishments that were commensurate with their crimes. The idea of measured punishment is not reflected in the concept that says all sins shall be punished with everlasting torment.
When I first considered the argument by Burke about the need for punishment to be based on the quality of the one sinned against, I assumed he was talking about the crucifixion of Jesus. This is not what Burke is saying, though; his point is everlasting torment is appropriate for all sins. So I will skip arguments about the great sin, except to make one point.
On the cross Jesus cried out, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23.34). Consider this prayer in contrast to the one Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane. There Jesus underwent terrible mental anguish as he thought about his impending crucifixion. He knew his sacrifice meant deliverance for his people. Even so, he wished to avoid the experience. Perhaps he hoped for a different substitute, as God had provided Abraham, sparing his son, Isaac. His choices, though, both seemed to have terrible consequences, so he put himself in the hands of the Father:“Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” (Luke 22.42).
There is a sharp contrast between these two prayers. In the Garden prayer, Jesus submits to the will and wisdom of the Father. In the cross prayer, Jesus tells the Father what to do. He calls out for the Father to forgive. In Luke’s narrative Jesus prays this either as he is being nailed to the cross or immediately after. How did Jesus’ demanding prayer sit with the Father? Paul wrote to the Philippians, “He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth” (Philippians 2.8-10). After his resurrection but before his ascension, Jesus revealed to his disciples, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matthew 28.18). We must conclude, then, that God the Father answered Jesus’ request for forgiveness by assigning the decision in the matter to him.
Was Jesus claiming in Luke 23.34 that the Jews and Romans did not know they were killing an innocent man? No, the New Testament makes it clear they understood that much. What they did not grasp was that Jesus was both man and God. So what we witness is that Jesus takes the worst sin in human history and specifically forgives it, eliminating the possibility of any punishment for it.
But as I already noted, Burke’s argument is not specifically about the crucifixion; what he is saying is that God himself is of infinite quality and that, therefore, any sin against him is deserving of infinite punishment. This means that all human sins deserve infinite punishment.
I will respond to this first with what I consider to be a lesser argument. Even though all sin is primarily against God, sin against God is much different than sin against others. We cannot harm God. If you have sinned, what do you accomplish against him? And if your transgressions are multiplied, what do you do to him? (Job 35.6).
We should look again to the cross to reinforce the idea that men cannot harm God. Neither can they thwart his plans. Even when men crucify the Son of God, their warring against God comes to nothing: Jesus dies but is raised again to life. But the victory is more than the resurrection of Jesus—his resurrection marks the opening of heaven. It is the beginning of thousands and millions of resurrections—lives taken from every nation on the earth and received into the only everlasting kingdom.
Sin is often referred to as “debt” in the New Testament. But what can we owe God if there is nothing we can take from him? We can say that we owe him our lives, and this is true. But then the only payment we can make for our sin is with our lives. Burke explains that in order for us to endure everlasting torment we would have to be given reconstituted bodies. He doesn’t say reinforced spirits, as well, but this is certainly also true. There is no biblical support for this possibility. But to my point, this means that sinners would actually be paying with more than their lives. This is a debt paid with compound interest: the most outrageous case of usury in human history.
But to the greater argument. As it turns out, God already made it clear what the punishment of sinning against him is. God said to Adam and Eve when they ate the forbidden fruit, “To the woman he said, ‘I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary toyour husband, but he shall rule over you.’And to Adam he said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, “You shall not eat of it,” cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.’” (Genesis 3.16-19).
The sin of Adam and Eve was no small matter. The Bible explains the presence of sin, the inclination to sin, and the punishment for sin is applied to all of humanity for this one infraction. It is the “Mother” of all sins, and it is clearly committed against no one but God himself. So what is the punishment God lays down? Essentially, he says that humans will suffer throughout their earthly lives. And then, after a life of struggle, they will die.
There it is in a bold marquee: The punishment for sin is death.
The argument for everlasting torment on the basis of the value of the One sinned against is philosophical claptrap. It contradicts God’s Word. It is an argument that supports human tradition, and it is an argument that, however unintentionally, rebels against God. It is now time to toss it into the scrap heap of careless, destructive ideas, where it belongs.
Recent Comments